All the President's money

By Donna K. Woodward

MEDAN, North Sumatra: Serious ethical questions have arisen about President Abdurrahman Wahid's ideas on fund raising, as illustrated by the Bulog scandal and Bruneigate.

Although the President and the foreign minister may be men of integrity on a personal level, they have a blind spot when it comes to believing they have the right to use their positions to raise funds secretly to support a favorite cause, however worthwhile that cause might seem.

They are insensitive to the need for them to be beyond reproach in matters related to financial corruption, nepotism and abuse of authority.

While officiating at the openings of several new industrial plants in East Java on Aug. 25, President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) called on the people to give his Cabinet members a chance to prove themselves. This is a consideration the President is entitled to.

But people are entitled to ask certain things of the President and his men in return. For example: while in East Java, did the President or any of his group (i.e. his government team, his political party representatives, his family member or friends) receive any funds or donations in kind from the companies they opened?

After all, this is said to have been one of Soeharto's usual ways of stuffing his pockets. It is time to ask the President to articulate his views on the ethics of fund-raising by government employees, whether by the President himself or a lower level employee, and whether the money is for private needs, government use, or partisan political purposes.

Does the President believe it is acceptable for him or other officials at any level of government to receive unreported money from private persons (including corporate executives), religious or social organizations, foreign governments or other foreign sources?

Does the President believe it is acceptable for him or other officials at any level of government to accept private donations of any kind (cash, children's tuition, expensive holidays) for performing official, quasi-official, or ceremonial tasks?

Is it acceptable for government employees of any level to solicit or accept funds from companies to purchase needed office equipment or to pay for employees' official travel expenses?

Is it acceptable for employees of government bureaus to process documents more quickly or expedite service for persons or organizations who pay extra fees?

Some will hold that these practices are not wrong; they are time-honored ways of compensating for low salaries and low departmental budgets.

But such practices are undesirable for several reasons. Funds that enter the bureaucracy (or the accounts of employees) outside official budgetary channels create a distorted picture of the real needs and real income of the government and the real cost of doing business.

This system enables government departments and quasi- government organizations to amass funds and maintain private treasuries, giving some bureaucrats uncontrolled discretion to disburse these funds.

The results endanger democracy; to appreciate this danger in the extreme we need only consider the violence now blanketing the country -- violence that is believed to be partially paid for by breakaway soldiers with access to secret caches of money.

The most harmful long-term effect of institutionalizing these methods of economic survival is that this system perpetuates a mind-set of beggary in the bureaucracy.

"Please can you give a little coffee money?", "To complete your documents we need to meet the minister in Jakarta and will need travel funds."

"Our military budget is so small, please pay for our new weapons." There is nothing shameful about needing financial assistance. However, systemic dependence on undercover handouts to meet basic needs, especially by those who ostensibly are respected wage earners (i.e. government employees) destroys self- respect and dignity.

This writer has long wondered whether the amount of money that now circulates between companies and government officials via official and unofficial channels might not be enough to give members of the civil service, police and military proper wages, if the money were collected and distributed transparently and equitably as official wages instead of in the customary ways.

Those ways allow some public servants to become feloniously wealthy and condemn others to a life of either petty corruption or poverty. This is not a choice a government employee should have to make.

Accepting donations for performing official or ceremonial tasks has long been government practice. But it is a form of fund-raising that is incompatible with good governance. Unless the practice is expressly prohibited by and at the highest level of the bureaucracy, financial transparency and accountability will elude the government. Corruption will not be eradicated.

Civil servants' self-respect cannot be restored. What will it take to convince Gus Dur's government to take a position on this issue? Will it take a general strike to convince the government that it must quickly find a way to redirect the illegal fees and nonbudgetary income and those ever-so welcome private donations to the state budget for better wages for government workers?

The writer, an attorney and former American diplomat at the U.S. Consulate General in Medan, is president director of PT Far Horizons management consultancy firm.